Trove
Sign In Sign Up

The Court

Organization
Mentions
2003
Relationships
255
Events
3033
Documents
968
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
255 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Ms. Sternheim
Legal representative
19 Very Strong
25
View
person Ms. Moe
Legal representative
19 Very Strong
26
View
person Ms. Comey
Legal representative
18 Very Strong
28
View
person Mr. Everdell
Legal representative
16 Very Strong
35
View
person MS. MENNINGER
Legal representative
13 Very Strong
12
View
person MR. PAGLIUCA
Legal representative
13 Very Strong
20
View
person defendant
Legal representative
12 Very Strong
8
View
person Ms. Williams
Professional
11 Very Strong
7
View
person Juror 50
Legal representative
11 Very Strong
12
View
person Juror No. 50
Legal representative
11 Very Strong
7
View
person Mr. Everdell
Professional
11 Very Strong
196
View
person Ms. Moe
Professional
11 Very Strong
228
View
person the defendant
Legal representative
11 Very Strong
13
View
person MR. WEINGARTEN
Professional
10 Very Strong
6
View
person MS. POMERANTZ
Professional
10 Very Strong
61
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
10
View
person Members of the jury
Professional
10 Very Strong
5
View
person Mr. Weinberg
Professional
10 Very Strong
8
View
person Ms. Sternheim
Professional
10 Very Strong
116
View
person Ms. Comey
Professional
10 Very Strong
155
View
person MR. ROSSMILLER
Professional
10 Very Strong
11
View
person MR. ROHRBACH
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
8
View
person MR. COHEN
Professional
10 Very Strong
9
View
person MR. PAGLIUCA
Professional
10 Very Strong
136
View
organization The government
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
7
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
N/A Legal proceeding The defense is requesting an evidentiary hearing to determine what happened regarding the abuse a... court View
N/A Legal proceeding Trial involving sex crimes, including testimony from Minor Victims and presentation of exhibits. courtroom View
N/A Submission of legal materials The Government is submitting Epstein and Maxwell grand jury materials (indices, transcripts, exhi... N/A View
N/A Court scheduling discussion Discussion regarding the court schedule, including jury presence, potential extended hours on Mon... Courtroom (implied) View
N/A Court proceeding The court discusses the admissibility of photographs of Jeffrey Epstein's apartment as evidence i... Court View
N/A Legal ruling The court ruling in the Annabi case established that a plea agreement binds only the U.S. Attorne... N/A View
N/A Sentencing A binding recommendation for a thirty (30) month sentence, divided into consecutive jail terms (1... 15th Judicial Circuit View
N/A Court testimony Cross-examination and redirect examination of a witness named Edelstein regarding knowledge of Ju... Courtroom (implied) View
N/A Legal proceeding Charging Conference where travel requirements were discussed. N/A View
N/A Hearing A hearing where Juror 50 responded to the Court's questions. N/A View
N/A Legal case/trial The Court in Libby ruled in favor of the defense and granted a motion to compel discovery. N/A View
N/A Legal case/trial Marshall's trial for a drug-related transaction, which included a four-day adjournment to address... N/A View
N/A Hearing A potential hearing where the Court can question Juror 50 about his answers on the questionnaire ... N/A View
N/A Court instruction The judge addressed the jury to confirm their schedule and remind them of COVID-19 safety protoco... main courthouse View
N/A Jury deliberation The jury is conducting deliberations. They requested to end at 5:00 p.m. and resume the next day ... jury room View
N/A Legal proceeding An inquiry into the conduct of Juror 50 during the voir dire process of the trial of Ghislaine Ma... United States District Court View
N/A Jury selection The Court summoned about seven hundred potential jurors who were gathered in groups of 100 or mor... courthouse View
N/A Legal proceeding An extradition request for a defendant is being considered, with legal uncertainty over when the ... United States View
N/A Court directive The Court directed the Government to state whether it had reviewed Maxwell's grand jury transcrip... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding Jury selection process (voir dire) where parties agreed on a number of prospective jurors to proc... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding During voir dire, Juror 50 was asked Question 49 about whether he or a family member had ever bee... Court View
N/A Legal proceeding Juror No. 50 told the Court during voir dire that he had deleted his Instagram account. Court View
N/A Court ruling The Court ruled that the perjury charges against Maxwell must be severed and tried separately fro... N/A View
N/A Legal action/motion Ms. Maxwell is drafting a Rule 33 motion to be filed on a schedule ordered by the Court. N/A View
N/A Legal ruling The court in 'this case' made no attempt to distinguish *Scharton* or *Noveck* and mischaracteriz... N/A View

DOJ-OGR-00011618.jpg

This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding involving Ms. Maxwell. Her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, requests that she be placed at the BOP facility in Danbury and enrolled in the Female Integrated Treatment (FIT) program, which the court recommends to the Bureau of Prisons. The court also grants a motion from the government, represented by Ms. Moe, to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying indictments against Ms. Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011617.jpg

This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on July 22, 2022, concerning the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. Her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, argues that Ms. Maxwell cannot pay a fine because a bequest she was to receive is 'unactualized' and she has received no money from it. The Court acknowledges she hasn't received the bequest but determines that other 'additional assets' make her able to pay the fine, and subsequently imposes the sentence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011614.jpg

This document is page 95 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell on July 22, 2022. The judge rejects Maxwell's claims regarding poor treatment at the MDC and lack of preparation time, noting a pattern of dishonesty and 'deflection of blame' consistent with her perjury in a civil deposition. While acknowledging that Maxwell and her attorney Ms. Sternheim expressed sympathy for the victims' suffering, the judge emphasizes that Maxwell failed to express acceptance of responsibility.

Court transcript (sentencing hearing)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011611.jpg

This document is a page from the sentencing transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The judge outlines the rationale for a substantial sentence, citing the gravity of the offense, the harm to victims, and the need for general deterrence against sexual abuse and trafficking of minors. The judge emphasizes that Maxwell's wealth and status do not place her above the law.

Court transcript / sentencing hearing
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011602.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript, likely from a sentencing hearing for a defendant named Ms. Maxwell, filed on July 22, 2022. The speaker, presumably her attorney, argues for a lenient sentence by highlighting her age (over 60), lack of prior criminal history, and positive contributions while incarcerated, such as tutoring fellow inmates in the MDC. The attorney contrasts her good character with the 'terrible conduct' for which she is being sentenced.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011600.jpg

This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, capturing a defense attorney's argument during a sentencing hearing. The attorney, Ms. Sternheim, asks the Court for a sentence below the recommended guidelines, arguing the government's request is disproportionate and that the more culpable Jeffrey Epstein would have faced the same sentencing guidelines as her client, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011572.jpg

This document is page 53 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Court overrules an objection regarding the inclusion of assets in the Presentence Report (PSR), specifically noting a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein to Maxwell. The Judge determines that Maxwell has failed to establish an inability to pay a fine, citing the bequest and $3.8 million in assets reported in July 2020.

Court transcript (sentencing hearing)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011565.jpg

This legal document is a court filing from July 22, 2022, discussing a defendant's conviction for sex trafficking a victim named Carolyn. The court refutes the defense's argument against an "undue influence" sentencing enhancement, finding that the defendant exploited Carolyn's financial needs for her drug addiction and newborn son. The court concludes that taking advantage of a victim's financial vulnerability constitutes undue influence, referencing testimony from Carolyn and other victims (Jane, Annie) who received payments.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011537.jpg

This document is a partial transcript from a court hearing on July 22, 2022, discussing factual objections and the calculation of sentencing guidelines. The Court, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe participate in the discussion, with the Court adopting PSR recitations and outlining the process for guideline calculation. The defense contends a guideline calculation of 51 to 63 months' imprisonment, while the government's contention is cut off.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00005734.jpg

This is the conclusion page of a legal motion filed on October 29, 2021, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. In the document, Maxwell's defense requests that the Court exclude evidence seized during a search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005, as well as Government Exhibit 295 (an affidavit). The page cites Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts regarding the admission of out-of-court affidavits.

Legal filing (motion conclusion)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017962.jpg

This document is the final signature page (page 28) of a legal complaint filed on April 16, 2019, in Case 1:19-cv-03377. It includes a prayer for relief in excess of $75,000 and a formal Jury Demand. The document is signed by attorneys Joshua Schiller and Sigrid McCawley of the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. The page bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to Congress.

Legal court filing (complaint/pleading - signature page)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017345.jpg

This document recounts a legal case involving a young violinist accused of rape by a female college student, a charge deemed implausible by Itzhak Perlman and the narrator due to the physical disparities between the accuser and the accused. Despite a conviction by a judge in a bench trial, the conviction was later reversed on appeal due to the defense being denied access to the complainant's psychiatric records, leading the prosecution to drop the case.

Legal case narrative / book excerpt
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017262.jpg

This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (likely by Alan Dershowitz, given the context of the 'Tison v. Arizona' case discussed) describing Supreme Court oral arguments. The text details the legal debate regarding the 'felony murder' rule, specifically whether the brothers (Ricky and Raymond) had the specific intent to kill the Lyons family or were merely present. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of the Congressional investigation into the handling of the Epstein case, likely included to illustrate the author's legal philosophy or history.

Manuscript / memoir draft (legal narrative)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015654.jpg

This document is the conclusion page (page 5) of a legal filing dated February 8, 2016. Attorney Sigrid S. McCawley, representing non-party Virginia Giuffre, requests the court to allow a limited release of Giuffre's confidential deposition transcript to law enforcement. The document bears the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015654.

Legal filing (conclusion page)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015653.jpg

This document is a legal filing (page 4) arguing that Defendant Alan Dershowitz must produce witnesses, including Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, if he wishes to pursue issues regarding Bill Clinton's travel. It highlights that Dershowitz invoked attorney-client privilege during his January 2016 deposition when asked if Virginia Roberts was lying about Clinton socializing with Epstein. It also notes Epstein's refusal to be deposed despite court orders.

Legal motion / court filing (page 4)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015627.jpg

This document is page 7 of a response in the case Edwards v. Dershowitz (CACE 15-000072). It details discovery disputes between victims' counsel (Edwards and Cassell) and the Government regarding the production of documents and the attempt to add Virginia Giuffre (Jane Doe No. 3) to the case in 2014. The text highlights the Government's delay tactics and eventual refusal to stipulate the addition of new victims.

Legal filing (court motion response)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013384.jpg

This page from a legal filing (likely by attorney Brad Edwards) argues that discovery efforts targeting Jeffrey Epstein's friends were necessary and valid. It highlights that Epstein and his household staff—who helped recruit minor girls—pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about activities at the West Palm Beach mansion. The document asserts that evidence of other sexual abuse is admissible to prove modus operandi or motive.

Legal brief / court filing (page 15)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021933.jpg

This page is a rough draft transcript of a deposition involving the House Oversight Committee (Bates stamp 021933). A witness is being questioned about why they filed a motion accusing Professor Alan Dershowitz without contacting him first to verify facts or ask for refutation. The witness explains that the U.S. Attorney's Office had delayed answering a request for consent for months (dating back to Summer 2014), leading to a court filing on January 21, 2015. The witness begins to explain the decision not to contact Dershowitz as a 'cost benefit situation' before the page ends.

Deposition transcript / legal proceeding (rough draft)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search